Skip to main content

Advertisement

  • Research
  • Open Access

Effect of early experience on neuronal and behavioral responses to con- and heterospecific odors in closely related Mus taxa: epigenetic contribution in formation of precopulatory isolation

  • 1Email author,
  • 2,
  • 1 and
  • 1
BMC Evolutionary Biology201919 (Suppl 1) :51

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12862-019-1373-8

  • Published:

Abstract

Background

The most effective learning occurs during sensitive periods. Olfactory plasticity to main social olfactory cues is limited to a critical period to a large degree. The objective was to evaluate the influence of early olfactory experience on the behavioral and neuronal responses of males to con- and heterospecific odors of receptive females in two species, M. musculus (subspecies musculus, wagneri) and M. spicilegus, and thus to determine the potential role of epigenetic contribution in the formation of precopulatory isolation.

Results

Males were reciprocally cross-fostered shortly after the birth and were tested for response to con- and heterospecific urine odors of estrus females using two-choice tests at 70–85 days of age. Neuronal activity of non- and cross-fostered males was evaluated at 90–110 days of age in the MOB and AOB to con- and heterospecific female odor using fMRI (MEMRI). Non-cross-fostered males of three taxa demonstrated a strong preference for odor of conspecific females compared to odor of heterospecific ones. Spicilegus-nursed musculus preferred odor of heterospecific females. Wagneri-nursed spicilegus and spicilegus-nursed wagneri did not demonstrate significant choice of con - or heterospecific female odor. The level of MRI signal obtained from the evaluation of manganese accumulation in AOB neurons was significantly higher when the odor of conspecific estrus females was exposed, compared to urine exposure of heterospecific females. The response pattern changed to the opposite in males raised by heterospecific females. Response patterns of neuronal activity in the MOB to con- and heterospecific female odors were different in cross-fostered and control males.

Conclusion

The maternal environment, including odor, had a greater effect on the level of MRI signal in the AOB than the genetic relationships of the recipient and the donor of the odor stimulus. Behavioral and neuronal responses to con- and heterospecific odors changed in closely related Mus taxa as a result of early experience. We demonstrated the importance of early learning in mate choice in adulthood in mice and the possibility of epigenetic contribution in the formation of precopulatory reproductive isolation.

Keywords

  • Mus musculus
  • Mus spicilegus
  • Cross-fostering
  • Early olfactory experience
  • Main olfactory bulb
  • Accessory olfactory bulb
  • Learning
  • MEMRI

Background

Learning occurs in most animal taxa and in different environmental contexts. It is widespread in nature and, thus, might be important in evolutionary processes [1, 2]. The classic demonstrations of how learning can affect mating preferences and display traits come from field and laboratory studies of sexual imprinting and song learning in birds [35]. Сonspecific mate preference and assortative mating can often result from imprinting on related individuals [68]. Sexual imprinting establishes a “sort of consciousness of the species in the young bird” [9] which is then used in mate choice. The individual learned phenotypic traits of parents and/or siblings, such as visual, auditory or olfactory ones, result in the learner being able to discriminate its own species and sex of conspecifics [1012]. The results of many of field and laboratory investigations were reviewed and discussed, confirming the essential importance of different forms of learning in the evolutionary process. Learned mate preferences and learned display traits can contribute to sexual selection, the evolution of reproductive isolation, population divergence, and sexual conflict [1, 10, 1315]. It should be noted that the main model groups of these studies were some species of fish and birds, in which visual and auditory signals have the leading role in communication [1, 57, 11, 16]. The significance of olfactory cues has been studied much less [12, 1719].

The most effective learning occurs during sensitive periods. Sensitive periods are viewed as times during development when experience exerts a very strong influence on the brain and on behavior. Critical periods are a special class of sensitive periods that result in irreversible changes or greatly modifications in brain function, but the possibility of their partial recovery under certain environmental conditions is preserved. During sensitive periods, experience is thought to instruct neural circuits to process or represent information in ways that are adaptive for the individual [20]. Axon elaboration and synapse formation, as well as axon and synapse elimination are two mechanisms that have been shown to alter circuit architecture in visual and auditory systems during sensitive periods. Synapse consolidation is a third mechanism that could underlie fundamental architectural changes that result from experience during sensitive periods [20]. These mechanisms could account for the persistence of learning that occurs during sensitive periods. When a circuit can select from a large range of potential patterns of connectivity, the effect of experience can have an enormous impact on circuit connectivity. These changes are possible as a result of neuroplasticity. The most recent definition of neuroplasticity is based on the permanent changes in the properties of nerve cells that occur under the influence of environmental stimuli or from a break in the continuity or other damage to the nervous system [21]. Mechanisms of neural plasticity of visual, auditory and olfactory systems during sensitive periods are considered in reviews [20, 2225].

Compared to other sensory systems, the olfactory system has a high plasticity not only during early period of ontogenesis, but also during adulthood of animals. This phenomenon is based on the processes of continuous regeneration of the olfactory epithelium and the epithelium of the vomeronasal organ. Olfactory bulbs (OB) retain the ability to neurogenesis throughout the life cycle of the animal [26, 27]. Olfactory and vomeronasal epithelium undergo continuous cell turnover, and newly generated interneurons arising from the subventricular zone of telencephalon are added to main (MOB) and accessory olfactory bulbs (AOB) [28]. Three forms of intraspecies olfactory learning (mate recognition in mice, maternal recognition of offspring in sheep and early olfactory learning in rats and rabbits) are studied relatively well. It was demonstrated that synaptic plasticity underlying these forms of olfactory learning may occur in the glomeruli of the OB at the first level of olfactory processing and inhibitory interneurons play a critical role in olfactory learning [24].

Nevertheless, olfactory plasticity to main social olfactory cues is limited to a critical period to a large degree. In this period exposure to the odor might change responses to con- and heterospecific odors in some species of mammals, but not in other species. If the range of potential patterns of responses is highly constrained by genetic programs, the effect of experience in critical periods is correspondingly small, see reviews [19, 29]. Of particular interest is the question of how epigenetic effects, such as imprinting and other forms of learning during early experience can influence on mate choice and preference of adult individuals. Sexually mature rodents typically display strong behavioral preferences for conspecific odors from opposite-sex individuals compared to odors of heterospecific ones [3033].

In most mammals, a major component of social environment is provided by mothers [34], and of particular interest is to what extent the epigenetic effects can depend on the maternally provided environment [35]. The approach of cross-fostering of offspring to lactating females of different species has been used for research on the role of early olfactory experience in adult odor preferences [12, 17, 18, 36, 37]. In mammals, mothers nurse and care for the pups and the mother’s odor can induce a positive conditioned reflex. It is difficult to separate imprinting from other forms of learning in the formation of various behavioral reactions. Therefore, we will use the term “early olfactory experience”.

A shift in preference toward odor of the foster parent indicates that species-specific odors are learned via the early experience with the foster parent. The observed changes are characterized by increased attraction to the heterospecific foster species rather than a complete reversal of species preference [38, 39] or decreased attraction to the conspecific species [17, 40, 41]. The olfactory system and olfactory behavior thus provides an attractive model to investigate processes involving interplay between genetic and epigenetic influences and their role in evolutionary process, especially development of precopulatory reproductive isolation.

Data from studies that addressed the effect of early olfactory experience on the subsequent response to conspecific odor in house mice (different strains of laboratory mice and wildliving Mus domesticus) are contradictory. Some authors reported that adult male and female mice, fostered by parents of the genera Baiomys, Peromyscus or Norway rat Rattus norvegicus, investigated longer the odor of foster species or preferentially stayed in a compartment of the chamber with this odor as compared to conspecific odor [17, 42]. According to the results of Wuensch [18], the early olfactory experience did not affect the reaction to conspecific odor in house mice, but had a considerable effect on the response to the odor of fostered species (rat). The results of Kirchhof-Glazier [43] did not agree with those described above, since the author did not detect any influence of early olfactory experience on the behavioral or physiological reactions in laboratory mouse females (strain CjL/C) fostered by deer mice Peromyscus maniculatus from the first day of life. Contradictions can be explained by differences in methods and genetic peculiarities of experimental mice and fostered species.

Individuals of closely related allopatric, parapatric, and sympatric taxa of species group Mus musculus sensu lato discriminate odors of their own species and heterospecifics and usually prefer odor of conspecifics [4448]. Controversy persists over the taxonoimic status of the two commensal taxa, Mus (musculus) musculus Linnaeus, 1758 [49], and Mus (musculus) domesticus Schwarz & Schwarz, 1943 [50, 51], but for simplicity (and following Sage et al. [52]) throughout this paper we consider these two taxa as distinct species. The species Mus musculus (subspecies M. m. musculus) and M. spicilegus are sympatric, M. m. wagneri and M. spicilegus are allopatric [5254]. Individuals of M. musculus and M. spicilegus that we selected for testing investigated conspecific urine odor significantly longer than heterospecific urine odor (including the odor from closely related species) in different two-choice combinations, regardless of the sex of the odor donors [44, 47, 55]. According to our preliminary data early olfactory experience to alter the response of M. musculus and mound-building mice M. spicilegus to con- and heterospecific odors [37]. Here we used the same standardized two-choice odor test in studies performed over many years, and this permitted comparison of results obtained at different times [47].

Previously we showed that exposure of M. domestius males to conspecific receptive female bedding induced Fos-immunoreactivity in both apical and basal zones of vomeronasal organ (VNO), which suggests the multicompound nature of the chemical signal. Fos-positive cells were located mainly in the rostral part of VNO [56]. In the response to exposure of receptive M. spicilegus female bedding to conspecific male we observed Fos-immunoreactivity in receptor VNO epithelium mainly in basal zone. Thus, the pattern of VNO receptor cells activation in response to stimulation with receptive female odor was different in males of the two species. The specific pattern of the activation in the sensory epithelium was absent when we exposed males to heterospecific female bedding. For the males of three taxa, M. musculus, M. spicilegus, M. domesticus, in response to stimulation with conspecific receptive female bedding we observed a clear pattern of activation in the caudal part of the AOB which receives projections from the basal VNO zone where receptors binding to higher molecular weight substances are expressed [57, 58]. At the same time in response to exposure of receptive M. spicilegus female bedding to M. musculus and M. domesticus males, we did not observe any Fos-immunoreactivity in caudal zone of AOB. Heterospecific female odor did not induce neural activation neither at the level of receptor tissue nor at the projecting area of AOB [56]. Taking into account the essential difference in chemical composition of urine M. domesticus and M. spicilegus [59] these data confirm the point of view that the systems of olfactory communication of sympatric species M. musculus and M. spicilegus are very different.

M. musculus (subspecies M. m. musculus) and M. spicilegus do not hybridize under natural conditions. Their precopulatory reproductive isolation is provided by multiple mechanisms at different levels of organization: from differences in behavioral patterns of sexual behavior [60] to differences in response to con- and heterospecific olfactory cues [44, 56]. Precopulatory isolating mechanisms can function at the receptor level as well as through different behavioral responses of individuals to olfactory cues upon interactions of potential sexual partners, taken together these provide reliable reproductive isolation for sympatric species under natural conditions [61].

Advances in the study of neural plasticity during the sensitive period of early ontogenesis could be utilized as a model for hypothesizing about the genetic and epigenetic constituents in development of precopulatory reproductive isolation in evolution. We alter maternal environment by cross-fostering such that cross-fostered pups are reared by heterospecific female. The objective of our research was to evaluate the influence of early olfactory learning on the neuronal and behavioral response of males to con- and heterospecific odors of receptive females in two species M. musculus and M. spicilegus and thus, to determine the potential role of epigenetic contribution in process of formation of precopulatory olfactory isolating mechanisms.

We used one of functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), manganese-enhanced MRI (MEMRI) for investigation of activity of olfactory neurons in males in response to the exposure of the odor of receptive female urine. MEMRI is a comparatively new noninvasive method to map neuronal function and connections [62, 63]. Manganese ion (Mn2+) enters neurons through voltage-gated calcium channels [64, 65], can be transported along axons and can cross synapses [6669]. Mn2+ transport across a synapse relies on presynaptic release and postsynaptic uptake, therefore, the amount of Mn2+ transported may change depending on the strength of connections if there is plasticity in a neural system [70, 71]. Mn2+ can be transported from the nose of a rodent to the OB and the tracing to the OB could be modulated by odorants [72], and MEMRI can be used to map neuronal function and connections in olfactory system [73]. Mn2+ is paramagnetic. Paramagnetic ions cause the spin-lattice relaxation time of H2O to shorten. The result is that wherever there is accumulation of Mn2+ within a tissue, there will be positive contrast enhancement in T1-weighted MRI images [7478]. That is, the signal intensity of such areas of accumulated Mn2+ will appear bright in T1-weighted MRI.

Methods

Animals and cross-fostering procedure

Our study was performed with adult male offspring of three taxa of Mus musculus s.l. species group reared either by their biological mothers, or by heterospecific foster-mothers (Table. 1).
Table 1

Experimental males and summary of treatment conditions

Species of males

Reared by

Fostering or non- fostering group at adulthood

Sample size (number of males)

Age of pup cross-fostering

Two-choice test

MEMRI

spicilegus

spicilegus

spicilegus

7

14

spicilegus

wagneri

spicilegus w

10

10

48–60 h

spicilegus

musculus

spicilegus mus

4

2

120–132 h

wagneri

wagneri

wagneri

9

11

wagneri

spicilegus

wagneri sp

6

10

48–60 h

musculus

musculus

musculus

12

14

w wagneri, sp spicilegus, mus musculus

The parental mice used in this study were laboratory-born, 3–4 months old (F3–4 generation) descendants of M. m. musculus trapped in Moscow and the Moscow region, M. m. wagneri trapped in the Astrakhan region, and M. spicilegus collected in the Rostov region. All subjects were bred in our laboratory in A. N. Severtsov Institute of Ecology and Evolution RAS.

All mice were housed in Macrolon cages type III (265 × 180 × 420 mm, ZOONLAB GmbH, Germany), which contained sawdust, food (Special mixed fodder for mice, Russia) and water ad libitum. Housing of the animals was standardized by 14:10 h light – dark cycle at a room temperature of 22 ± 2 °C.

The adoption procedures were performed 48–60 h or 120–132 h after parturition. The biological mother was removed, the pups were counted, sexed using anogenital distance, all males thoroughly mixed with the foster mother’s bedding and placed in a clean warm round cup with a diameter of 15 cm for 20 min. The female pups were put back into their mother’s cage. After that, males were placed with adoptive mothers. Thus, males were raised by heterospecific females, along with female pups of the same species as the adoptive mother. Control pups were treated in the same manner but were caged with their biological mother. The final number of pups per litter, after experimental manipulation, ranged from 4 to 6.

The pups were weaned at 30 days of age. They were housed in same-sex sibling groups (no more than 4 mice per cage) and left undisturbed until 60 days of age. They were then isolated in individual cages. A series of olfactory two-choice tests were performed in the adult offspring at 70–85 days of age, and fMRT investigations were performed at 90–110 days of age (Table 1). In each series of experiments, offspring of at least two litters were used. To prevent exposure to female odors, during experiments all subjects were housed and tested in an all-male rooms.

We refer to different groups by abbreviations: spicilegus, musculus, wagneri – fostered by original mother, spicileguswspicilegus fostered by wagneri, spicilegusmusspicilegus fostered by musculus, wagnerispwagneri fostered by spicilegus.

Urine collection

The samples of urine were obtained from estrus female mice two to three days prior to the experiments or on the day of the experiments by placing the females into small mesh cages with 60-mm Petri dishes under the bottom for 2–4 h. The urine was stored frozen and thawed only once, 1 h prior to the beginning of the experiment. At least five urine donors from each species were used in each series. The stage of estrus was identified evaluating cytology of vaginal smears [79]. The estrus was induced by sequential injections of estrogen and progesterone.

Behavioral two-choice test: Comparison of con- and heterospecific estrus female odors investigation.

Behavioral testing

Males were tested for their odor preference in individual glass chambers (30 × 20 × 20 cm) with a mesh lid and sawdust (2-cm layer) and a piece of cotton wool for nest building at the bottom. The males were placed in the chambers 7 days before the start of the testing. The tests were conducted in the same chambers once in 4–6 days under low intensity artificial illumination, always during the dark-phase of the dark–light cycle to cover the active period of animals, from 8:00 p.m. to 4:00 a.m.

A round plastic stand (diameter 130 mm, height 30.5 mm) was placed near one end of the chamber, and two Petri dishes (40 mm in diameter) were placed on the stand at a distance of 30 mm from one another. A square piece of cellophane (10 × 10 mm) with a drop of donor urine (20 μl) was placed into the Petri dishes immediately prior to the beginning of the experiment. The day before testing, to both habituate the subjects to experimental procedure and to obtain baseline behavioral data, males were tested with clean odor Petri dishes. Males were used in experiments no more than three times. The number of tests and paired combinations of the odors of con- and heterospecific estrus females is given in the corresponding table.

We recorded the time of investigation of each odor source using a stopwatch after the male emerged from the nest for two to three approaches to these odor sources for 10 min. The activity of males, directed to the sources of odor, as a rule ceased in 3–5 min. The observers were blind to the condition of test, and two different observers reached at least 90% inter-observer reliability score prior to register time of odor investigation.

Data analysis

Statistical significance of test sample preference based on the time investigation of odor sources was estimated by using nonparametric Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test for paired samples in UNISTAT Statistical Package Version 6.5.04.

Investigation of neuronal activation of olfactory bulbs (MEMRI)

Animal preparation

House mice of three taxa were divided into fourteen groups (Table. 2). One day prior to testing, the mice were placed in clean ventilated cages (350 × 250 × 120 mm, ZOONLAB GmbH, Germany), with dust-free sawdust as bedding. To test the neuronal activation of MOB and AOB in response to odors 10-μl aqueous solution of 10 mM MnCl2 (Sigma-Aldrich Co, MO, USA) was rapidly injected into one nostril using a 20-μl micropipette. After that, the mouse was put into its empty clean cage. Subjects were exposed to either clean “saline” air, or estrus female urinary volatile odors. For the odor stimulation groups, each individual was exposed to one urine odor. All odor and saline exposures were pulsed at 1:3-min on:off (1 min on, 3 min off) intervals taking into account the habituation of glomerular responses in the olfactory bulb following odor stimulation [80]. Each odor was exposed 4 times (16 min in total).
Table 2

Summary of treatment conditions, odor exposure, and distribution of subjects

Species of test males and rearing conditions

Test samples (exposure of urine of estrus females or saline)

Number of individuals

wagneri

wagneri

3

wagneri

spicilegus

4

wagneri sp

wagneri

5

wagneri sp

spicilegus

5

spicilegus

wagneri

5

spicilegus

spicilegus

5

spicilegus w

wagneri

5

spicilegusw

spicilegus

5

spicilegus mus

spicilegus

2

musculus

musculus

5

musculus

spicilegus

4

musculus

saline

5

wagneri

saline

4

spicilegus

saline

4

Exposure of odors

For odor exposure, an olfactometer of the following design was used: the air pump (Barbus SB-348A) was connected to the closed cage of the tested individual by a silicone hose with a 1-ml plastic nozzle. A piece of filter paper (0.5 cm × 2 cm) was placed inside the plastic nozzle inserted into the drinking hole in the cage cover and 20 μl of urine / saline of the odor stimulus was applied. During the exposure of the odor stimulus, air was passed through the nozzle at a rate of 200 ml / min. To test each mouse, a new nozzle and a new piece of filter paper were used. For each odor stimulus, a new silicone hose was used.

MEMRI: Procedure, parameters and data analysis

We used a 11.7 T BioSpec 117/16 USR (Bruker, Germany) MR-scanner for MEMRI study. The mice were immobilized with a gas mixture (4%) of isoflurane (Isofluran, Baxter Healthcare Corp., USA) and air using an anesthesia machine (The Univentor 400 Anaesthesia Unit, Univentor, Malta) 3 min before the experiment. Anesthetized mouse were placed on a heated surface (temperature 30 °C) set in the MR-scanner. Pneumatic sensor for breathing (SA Instruments, Stony Brook, NY, USA) was put under the lower part of animal body.

The neuronal activity of olfactory epithelium and VNO of the male M. spicilegus, M. m. wagneri and M. m. musculus was assessed based on the level of the MRI signal in the glomerular layer of the MOB and in the AOB. Accumulation of manganese ions (Mn2 +) in neurons of MOB and AOB is very reliably correlated with the level of activity of calcium channels of olfactory epithelial cells and VNO [72, 73]. The accumulation of manganese ions in OB cells was expressed as the ratio of the tissue MRI signal level to the level of the MRI signal in the reference, which was a microtubule with phosphate buffer (0.5 ml) placed along the mouse’s head (Fig. 1). MRI scanning was performed at 2 h after the exposure to the odor stimulus or saline.
Fig. 1
Fig. 1

Scanning process of MEMRI and mapping of the activity in the mouse MOB. Maps demonstrate the neuronal activity of various areas of the mouse MOB glomeruli layer in response to the olfactory stimulus

The distribution of manganese ions within the OB in control experiments and under the influence of odor stimuli was obtained using T1-weighted images using the RARE (Rapid Acquisition with Relaxation Enhancement) method. Parameters of the pulse sequence of the method (TE = 10 ms, TR = 400 ms), image parameters (field of view – 1.8 × 1.8 cm, matrix – 256 × 256 pixel array, thickness of slice – 0.5 mm, 75 μm × 75 μm × 0.5 mm voxel dimensions, the distance between the slices – 0.5 mm, the number of slices is 5, the orientation of the slices is coronary), the total scan time was 7 min.

Preliminary processing of MRI scans was carried out in ImageJ. This procedure consisted of several stages: aligning the images horizontally, isolating the boundaries of the mouse’s brain, resizing the images. Alignment of the brain geometry made it possible to compare automatically the level of the MRI signal in AOB and in certain regions of the MOB in individuals. To analyze the distribution patterns, the globular layer of OB in each MRI slice was divided into 12 regions. MOB was fitted in 5 scans (Fig. 1). Thus, MOB was presented in 60 regions (12 × 5) and the original resolution of the scan MRI was reduced to 250 μm × 250 μm × 0.5 mm. Within these 60 regions, the MRI level of the signal was averaged. It gave us an opportunity to make various intergroup comparisons and to evaluate the changes in neuronal activity in response to the odor stimulus. Next, a two-dimensional map of the OB was used to visualize the obtained results. The number of the region (1–12) was plotted along the abscissa axis, the cutoff number (1–5) was plotted along the ordinate axis. Pseudo coloring reflects the value of the Student’s t-criterion, characterizing the reliability of the differences between the two groups (Fig. 1). To analyze the activation patterns of the AOB, the following parameters were used: the total number of regions in which the manganese accumulation significantly differs between the two groups, the average value of the t-test and its variance.

To compare the two patterns of the MOB reaction according to the number of regions of the glomerular layer, where the manganese accumulation significantly differs between the two groups (p < 0.05, based on the values of the t-test), the χ2 criterion was used. For the values whose variational series approached the normal one, dispersion analysis was used. For multiple average comparisons, the LSD test (Least Significant Difference) was used. Data were expressed as Mean ± SE.

To evaluate the relationship between the two activation patterns of the OB, Spearman’s nonparametric correlation coefficient was used. To compare the two correlation coefficients, the approach described by Myers and Sirois [81] was used.

Results

Behavioral testing

Table 3 shows the time that cross-fostered and non-fostered males spent investigating urine samples of con- and heterospecific estrus females during two-choice tests. M. spicilegus raised by female M. m. musculus spent significantly more time investigating the odor sources of heterospecific females. Wagneri-nursed spicilegus and spicilegus-nursed wagneri did not demonstrate significant choice of con- or heterospecific female odor (Table 3). Non-fostered male spicilegus investigated longer the odor of conspecific females in comparison with wagneri-nursed males (Table 4). Wagneri-nursed spicilegus investigated longer the urine odor of female wagneri in comparison with non-fostered male spicilegus. There were no significant differences in time investigation of wagneri female odors in wagneri-nursed spicilegus in comparison with non-fostered male wagneri, but time investigation of spicilegus female odors by wagnerisp were significantly longer than in non-fostered spicilegus (Table 4).
Table 3

Time of investigation of urine of estrus females by the males

Recipients

Test samples of the urine odor

Time of the odor investigation

(average, min – max)

Number of tests

Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test

with longer investigation of conspecific odor

total

P

Test statistic

(Z)

spicilegus

spicilegus

wagneri

15.7; 0.8–2.8

1.9; 0.3–6.1

13

15

0.0003

−3.2374

spicilegus mus

spicilegus

musculus

7.1; 1.8–15.9

9.7; 3.6–15.1

2

12

0.021

−2.2749

spicilegus w

spicilegus

wagneri

7.8; 2.3–12.2

7.9; 3.9–16.0

11

16

0.865

−0.196

wagneri

wagneri

spicilegus

9.1; 1.3–3.1

3.3; 0.9–7.4

11

13

0.0081

−2.5508

wagneri sp

wagneri

spicilegus

8.6; 0.9–21.2

6.8; 2.9–11.2

4

7

0.578

−0.676

musculus

musculus

spicilegus

18.1; 1.3–36.1

3.6; 0.3–12.5

15

15

0.0001

−3.4078

See Table 1. Significant values are underlined

Table 4

Comparison of the time investigation of odors of con- and heterospecific estrus females by non-fostered and fostered males

Recipients of the odors

Donors of the odors

Time of the odor investigation (average, min – max)

Mann-Whitney U Test

P

Test statistic (U)

spicilegusspicilegusw

spicilegus

15.7; 0.8–32.8

7.8; 2.3–12.2

0.0075

62

wagneriwagnerisp

wagneri

9.1; 1.3–23.1

8.6; 0.9–21.2

0.8773

43

spicilegusspicilegusw

wagneri

2.0; 0.3–6.1

7.9; 3.8–16

0.0000

9

wagneriwagnerisp

spicilegus

3.3; 0.9–7.4

6.8; 2.9–11.2

0.0186

16

See Table 1. Significant values are underlined

Neuronal responses in the MOB by MEMRI

“Heat maps” are used to visualize the distribution of the t-test values over the surface of the MOB (Figs. 2 and 3). Table 5 shows the statistical values to compare of the manganese accumulation patterns in MOB in response to the different olfactory cues. All odors induced significant changes in the level of the MRI signal compared to the control (Figs. 2, 3 and 4, Table 5). The number of MOB parts with significant differences of Mn2+ accumulation (further in the text «STZ») in male M. spicilegus was similar in response to exposure of estrus female urine of M. spicilegus, M. m. wagneri and saline (χ2 = 1.57, p = 0.21). There were no significant differences in the number of STZ in MOB in male M. m. wagneri in response to exposure of estrus female urine of M. spicilegus and M. m. wagneri (χ2 = 1.57, p = 0.21) and in male M. m. musculus in response to exposure of estrus female urine of M. spicilegus and M. m. musculus (χ2 = 2.31, p = 0.12).
Fig. 2
Fig. 2

The neuronal responses of M. spicilegus and M. m. wagneri males to female odors. The patterns of accumulation of manganese ions in areas of the MOB of M. spicilegus and M. m. wagneri males fostered by con- or heterospecific females in response to the exposure of the urine odor of estrus female M. spicilegus and M. m. wagneri. The values of the correlation coefficient of the reaction patterns to the odor of M. spicilegus and M. m. wagneri for each group are indicated. For Figs. 2-5 pseudocoloring illustrates the significance of the increase (t > 0, where t is Student’s t criterion in pixel-to-pixel comparison of the group mean values of the signal in mouse OB) or decrease (t < 0) of the intensity of contrast accumulation in various MOB areas in response to the olfactory stimulus in comparison with the control group (saline exposure).

Fig. 3
Fig. 3

The neuronal responses of M. spicilegus and M. m. musculus males to female odors. The patterns of accumulation of manganese ions in areas of the MOB in male M. spicilegus fostered by M. m. musculus (mus - M. m. musculus) females and male M. m. musculus in response to the exposure of the urine odor of M. spicilegus and M. m. musculus estrus female. The values of the correlation coefficient of the reaction patterns to the odor of M. spicilegus and M. m. musculus for each group are indicated

Table 5

Patterns of accumulation of the manganese in OB of the males in response to the odor urine of females

Odor vs control

t-test mean value

Standard error of the mean

Variance

STZ

M. m. musculus*

spicilegus

0.52

0.10

0.61

9

musculus

−0.33

0.10

0.69

3

M. spicilegus* mus

musculus

−0.88

0.17

1.94

10

spicilegus

1.02

0.15

1.44

9

M. spicilegus* w

spicilegus

0.50

0.16

1.61

13

wagneri

0.29

0.12

0.97

3

M. spicilegus*

spicilegus

0.52

0.10

0.61

4

wagneri

−0.31

0.09

0.55

3

M. m. wagneri* sp

spicilegus

0.76

0.14

1.22

7

wagneri

1.45

0.13

1.18

22

M. m. wagneri*

spicilegus

1.50

0.12

0.89

19

wagneri

0.70

0.19

2.30

12

STZ suprathreshold zones – zones of OB, in which MRI signal level significantly differ from those in the control (Student’s t-test, p < 0.05), * – recipients of the odors

Fig. 4
Fig. 4

The comparison of the neuronal responses of M. spicilegus and M. m. wagneri males. The comparison of the patterns of accumulation of manganese ions in areas of the MOB in male M. spicilegus (a) and male M. m. wagneri (b), fostered by con- and heterospecific females (sp - M. spicilegus, w - M. m. wagneri, mus – M. m. musculus) in response to the exposure of the urine odor of M. spicilegus (a) and M. m. wagneri (b) females. The values of the correlation coefficient of the reaction patterns to the odor of M. spicilegus and M.m. wagneri for each group are indicated

The intensity of the response (expressed as the number STZ in MOB) is significantly higher in male M. m. wagneri compared to M. spicilegus as to odor of the urine of M. spicilegus females, and to the odor of female M. m. wagneri (χ2 = 3.77, p = 0.05).

Number of STZ in male M. spicilegus fostered by heterospecific females increased in comparison with a male M. spicilegus nursed by their mother in response to urine of estrus conspecific females. This increase was significant in the male M. spicilegusw (Table 5, χ2 = 4.39, p = 0.03) and did not achieve significant differences in the male M. spicilegusmus (χ2 = 2.02, p = 0.1). Number of STZ in these groups of males did not change in response to exposure of female odor of M. m. wagneri (Table 5). In male M. m. wagneri fostered by female M. spicilegus number of STZ increased significantly in response to the odor of conspecific females in comparison with male nursed by their mother (χ2 = 4.07, р = 0.04) and decreased to exposure of urine of female M. spicilegus ((χ2 = 5.94, р = 0.01).

The patterns of reaction to the same odors between male M. spicilegus and male M. m. wagneri, nursed by con- and heterospecific females of these species (Figs. 4 and 5) showed significantly lower correlation coefficients compared to responses to different odor stimuli within each group (Fig. 2, Table 6). Correlation analysis showed that there was a strong quantitative similarity between the reaction patterns in male M. spicilegus and M. m. wagneri, fostered by con- and heterospecific females, elicited by the odors of the estrus urine of con- and heterospecific females (Table 6, Fig. 2).
Fig. 5
Fig. 5

The interspecific comparisons of the neuronal responses of M. spicilegus and M. m. wagneri males. The interspecific comparisons of the patterns of accumulation of manganese ions in various areas of the MOB in male M. spicilegus and male M. m. wagneri in response to the exposure of the urine odor of M. spicilegus and M. m. wagneri estrus female. The values of the correlation coefficient of the reaction patterns to the odor of M. spicilegus and M. m. wagneri for each group are indicated

Table 6

Comparison of partial correlation coefficients of the patterns of activation of the OB neurons in mice of different species in response to urine odors of con- and heterospecific females

Species of the test males

Test sample of urine of females

Comparison of experimental groups

Partial correlation coefficients

P- value

r 1

r 2

spicilegus

spicilegus

spicilegus

spicilegus w

0.17

0.68

0.03

spicilegus

spicilegus mus

0.55

0.68

0.31

spicilegus mus

spicilegus w

0.11

0.68

0.02

wagneri

spicilegus

spicilegus w

0.33

0.68

0.09

wagneri

wagneri

wagneri

wagneri sp

0.34

0.65

0.12

spicilegus

wagneri

wagneri sp

0.50

0.65

0.3

Neuronal responses in AOB by MEMRI

The level of MRI signal, obtained from the evaluation of manganese accumulation in AOB neurons, was significantly higher for non-fostered males when exposed to the urine odor of conspecific estrus female than when exposed to heterospecific females (Figs. 6 and 7). The response pattern was the opposite in males fostered by heterospecific females.
Fig. 6
Fig. 6

The neuronal activation of the AOB of males. The neuronal activation of the AOB of males of M. spicilegus (A) and males of M. m. wagneri (B), fostered by con- and heterospecific females (sp - M. spicilegus, w - M. m. wagneri, mus - M. m. musculus), in response to the odor of urine of estrus females. As a criterion for estimating the response of neurons to the odor stimulus, the intensity of accumulation of manganese ions was used, which is proportional to the level of the MRI signal in this region. A, B, C - significant differences in the LSD test (p < 0.05)

Fig. 7
Fig. 7

Neuronal activation of the AOB of male M. m. musculus. The response to the odor of urine of estrus females. As a criterion for estimating the response of neurons to the odor stimulus, the intensity of accumulation of manganese ions was used, which is proportional to the level of the MRI signal in this region. A, B, C - significant differences in the LSD test (p < 0.05)

Discussion

The change of the response pattern of AOB neurons of males fostered by heterospecific females to the urine odor of con- and heterospecific females, on the opposite is one of the most impressive results of our studies. We demonstrated that the maternal environment, including odor, has a greater effect on the MRI level of the signal in the AOB than the genetic relationship of the recipient and the donor of the odor stimulus.

The vomeronasal or accessory olfactory system has long been considered to be tuned for sensing pheromones and indeed all chemically identified house mouse pheromones are detected by V1R and V2R receptors of VNO [8284], see reviews [28, 58, 85]. Urine, a well-characterized pheromone source in mammals, as well as saliva, activates AOB neurons in a manner that reliably encodes the donor animal’s sexual and genetic status [86]. It has been already accepted earlier that the two chemosensory systems, the main olfactory and the vomeronasal system, were responsible for different functions. The main olfactory system was considered to be responsible for recognizing the volatile odorant molecules, used in the context of social communication. Current views on olfactory processing suggest that both the main olfactory and vomeronasal systems detect partially overlapping sets of social chemosignals. Consequently, both systems should be conceived as complementary rather than as separate pathways [87, 88]. The further studies have demonstrated that both chemosensory systems are involved in pheromone detection [8891]. The exposure of some pheromones induced activation in the glomerular layer of MOB in house mice and rats [92, 93].

We have also shown that the changes in neuronal activation under the influence of the early olfactory experience in response to the urine odor of estrus con- and heterospecific females occur in the MOB.

Induced sensitivity to olfactory stimuli in mammals has been proved experimentally both for different substances (odorants and pheromones) and for complex mixtures, such as animal excreta [94, 95]. This phenomenon is associated the plasticity of the processes of chemical communication of mammals. The induced sensitivity to olfactory stimuli is highly specific and does not affect the overall olfactory sensitivity and sensitivity to substances structurally or functionally unrelated to the exposed substances [94]. The exposure of individual urine samples within the two-week timeframe after eyes open increased sensitivity to target samples by 100-fold relative to controls (no exposure), while similar exposures to individual urine samples during adulthood or first 10–14 days of life increased sensitivity to target individual urine samples by 10-fold only [94, 95]. The timing of sensitive period for maximal imprinting of conspecific odor is also confirmed in Norway rats Rattus norvegicus [96]. Sensitization to individual odors in mice also was demonstrated for heterospecific urine samples. Mice cross fostered by Djungarian hamsters (Phodopus sungorus) from the birth to the time of weaning, were able to discriminate individual hamster urine sample at the concentration of 3–4% which is very close to discrimination thresholds for conspecific urine in mice (2–3%) [94]. A number of studies demonstrated the involvement of both peripheral and central mechanisms into processes of sensitization to the odors [97100]. According to these data sensitive period toward individual odors begins in pups after two weeks of early postnatal development. Moreover, the time limits of the critical period correspond to the period of maturation of the synaptic apparatus of the olfactory system [101]. During the period from the 11th to the 20th day of development that a sharp increase in the number of dendrites in the olfactory system occurs [102]. In the mouse OB starting from the 14th day after birth mitral cells reorient their cell bodies which followed by growing of the first definitive dendrites from their soma and forming of the first synapses. Day later considerably greater numbers of axo-dendritic and a few dendrodendritic synapses occur in the presumptive glomerular layer [102]. It has been shown for several species of mammals, that the maturation of synaptic contacts in the olfactory system correlates to behavioral patterns of imprinting [103, 104]. Long exposures (1 week or more) of pure androstenone (male boar pheromone) cause long-term changes in the olfactory sensitivity of house mice at the level of behavior and irreversible changes at the level of the olfactory lining [105, 106]. Modern studies have identified possible neuroanatomical correlates of plasticity in the olfactory analyzer [107]. Methods of molecular biology demonstrated the possibility of switching the expression of one olfactory receptor gene to another in one sensory neuron in a certain sensitive period [108]. Our data are in good agreement with these findings. The difference in the reaction of cross-fostered mice in our experiments may be due to changes at the receptor level or the formation of new pathways of the accessory and main chemosensory systems during the sensitive periods under the influence of the early olfactory experience.

It is more difficult to explain elevated number of STZ in male M. spicilegus and M. m. wagneri fostered by heterospecific females compared to a males nursed by their mothers in response to urine of estrus conspecific females.

Urine is a very complicated mixture consisting of hundreds of substances, including pheromones and odorants. Currently, there is not enough information about the mechanisms of perception and encoding of complex mixtures in main and accessory olfactory systems. The problems are at relatively early stages of the study [109]. For example, in mice individual neurons in AOB activated selectively by specific combinations of the sex and strain of conspecifics [110]. Authors infer that mammals encode social and reproductive information by integrating vomeronasal sensory activity specific to sex and genetic makeup. Much less is known about these processes under the influence of the early olfactory experience. It was shown that early experience with multiple odorants results in increased responsiveness both to previously experienced odorants and to novel odorants that stimulate previously activated regions of the bulb [111].

Chemical composition of urine of M. domesticus and M. spicilegus has qualitative and quantitative differences. A series of volatile and odoriferous lactones and the presence of coumarin were the unique features of M. spicilegus, as was the notable absence of 2-s-butyl-4,5-dihydrothiazole (a prominent M. domesticus male pheromone) and other sulfur containing compounds. Some other M. domesticus pheromone components were also found in M. spicilegus urine but in other concentrations [59].

It is possible that increase of number of STZ in male M. spicilegus and M. m. wagneri fostered by heterospecific females in comparison with a males nursed by their mothers in response to urine of estrus conspecific females was due to odor novelty. Exposed odor of conspecific estrus female should be novel for cross-fostered males.

The change of the behavioral preference for con- and heterospecific female odors of males fostered by heterospecific females is consistent with the results on neuronal activation in OB and with our previous data. We have demonstrated that preference of the odor of the potential mate partner has changed in cross-fostered M. musculus and M. spicilegus [37]. In these studies, a shift in preference toward odor of the foster species was due to increased attraction to the heterospecific foster species and decreased attraction to the conspecific species in some cases (Table 4).

The differences of olfactory signals in closely related taxa at early stages of divergence may be the first step of the development of their reproductive isolation. The process of reinforcement is one of mechanisms of speciation in which learning can play an important role [6, 112]. When two populations have accumulated differences in allopatry, but come into secondary contact before the speciation process is completed, mated pairs that hybridize between them and their descendants may have reduced fitness. Reinforcement occurs when this lowered fitness of hybridizing pairs and hybrids drives the evolution of premating isolation to prevent hybridization [113116]. Reinforcement may be affected by learning in a number of ways (for reviews see Servedio et al. [117]). For example, paternal imprinting [118] can drive speciation and maintain species differences easily compared to genetically inherited preferences, even sex-linked ones. According to the model of Servedio et al. [117], reinforcement can indeed occur via imprinted preferences.

We altered the maternal environment by cross-fostering and demonstrated that behavioral and neuronal responses to con- and heterospecific odors changed in closely related taxa of Mus as result of early experience. We demonstrated the importance of early learning in the mate preference for odor of mice in adulthood and the possibility of epigenetic contribution in the formation of precopulatory isolation. In our experiments we used relatively strongly divergent and non-interbreeding in nature species. Nevertheless, a change in the preference of the odor of the mate, and probably the mate choice in M. musculus under the influence of early experience, could be realized in the case of secondary contact with M. domesticus.

These data allow us to suggest the following scenario of development of precopulatory isolation in evolution of house mice. According to the hypothesized history and differentiation of M. musculus and M. domesticus, initial colonization of the Middle East from the Indian cradle was followed by the phase of isolation and subsequent divergence. The phases of isolation and secondary contact alternated in the process of evolution. Secondary contact and gene flow occurred during interglacial periods and isolation occurred during glacial periods [119]. Allopatric populations could have a divergence of odors.

During secondary contact of isolated before populations (in interglacial periods) individuals could prefer mate partner with imprinted odor. Gradually, preference for such altered odor could be fixed in the course of evolution. According to one of the models when reinforcement occurs via the evolution of population specific traits, if imprinting is already established, greater trait differences between populations would be expected when there is lower hybrid fitness [117]. If hybrids had reduced fitness, the process of reinforcement could drive natural selection against hybrids. Indeed, the effect of reinforcement selection was shown in the European hybrid zone of M. musculus and M. domesticus [120].

According to current studies, individuals of M. musculus populations from the border of the European hybrid zone consistently show assortative sexual preference of conspecifics, as well as mice from the central parts of the range [48, 121, 122]. The pattern is more variable in M. domesticus, with some populations showing assortative preference [121] and others do not demonstrate it [46, 48, 123].

On the other hand, early olfactory experience in hybrid zones should favor mate choice of hybrids. This preference may affect the relative stability of such zones. The patterns of preference differ between natural hybrids from Denmark and F1 hybrids obtained in the laboratory from mice of the same geographical origin. The natural hybrids demonstrate domesticus-like preference [121], while the two reciprocal F1 crosses do not show a consistent preference, but when a preference is detected it is musculus-like [46]. These differences can indicate the possibility of significant differences at the first stage of secondary contact of populations, when the majority of hybrids are F1 and backcrosses, as compared to today’s highly recombined genotypes [124].

The evolutionary history of M. spicilegus is poorly understood. At present, it is not possible to reconstruct the pattern of interactions of the ancestral forms of free-living species group of mice, which includes M. spicilegus, and the synanthropic species group including M. musculus and M. domesticus. Researchers disagree on the origin and migration routes of ancestral forms of free-living species [125128]. Apparently, the ancestral forms of these two subsequently divergent groups (synanthropic and free-living species) could inhabit the same territories, and that does not exclude the influence of the role of learning at an early age on the formation of mechanisms of precopulating isolation between species.

Thus, early learning could play a role in the formation of mechanisms of precopulatory reproductive isolation between closely related taxa of house mice in the Mus musculus s.l. species group in the process of evolution.

Conclusions

The change in the maternal environment alters the reaction patterns to con- and heterospecific odors in adult specimens of M. spicilegus and M. musculus. Non-cross-fostered males of three taxa demonstrated a strong preference for odor of conspecific females compared to odor of heterospecific ones. Spicilegus-nursed musculus preferred odor of heterospecific females. Wagneri-nursed spicilegus and spicilegus-nursed wagneri did not demonstrate significant choice of con - or heterospecific female odor.

The level of MRI signal, obtained from the evaluation of manganese accumulation AOB neurons, was significantly higher for non-fostered males of M. spicilegus and M. m. wagneri when exposed to the urine odor of conspecific estrus female than when exposed to the urine odor of heterospecific female.

The response pattern of neuronal activation in AOB of males fostered by heterospecific females to the urine odor of con- and heterospecific females, was the opposite of the response pattern of non-fostered males. The maternal environment, including odor, has a greater effect on the MRI level of the signal in the AOB of adult males than the genetic relationship of the recipient and the donor of the odor stimulus.

The neuronal activation in the MOB in males of M. spicilegus and M. m. wagneri in response to the odor of con- and heterospecific estrus females is significantly changed by the maternal environment (cross-fostering) during early postnatal ontogenesis.

The early learning coming from the maternal environment could play a role in the formation of mechanisms of precopulatory reproductive isolation between closely related taxa of house mice in the Mus musculus s.l. species group in the process of their evolution.

Abbreviations

AOB: 

Accessory olfactory bulb

F1

Hybrids of the first generation

fMRI: 

Functional magnetic resonance imaging

MEMRI: 

Manganese-enhanced MRI

MOB: 

Main olfactory bulb

OB: 

Olfactory bulb

spicilegus mus

Spicilegus fostered by musculus

spicilegus w

Spicilegus fostered by wagneri

STZ: 

The number of MOB parts with significant differences of Mn2+ accumulation

wagneri sp

Wagneri fostered by spicilegus

Declarations

Acknowledgements

Animal procedures (fMRI investigations) were carried out at the Center for Genetic Resources of Laboratory Animals at the Institute of Cytology and Genetics (Siberian Branch, Russian Academy of Sciences). The behavioral tests were made in the A.N. Severtsov Institute of Ecology and Evolution, Chernogolovka biological station, using animals from Joint Usage Center ‘Live collection of mammals’.

We are grateful to Dr. М. Rodova (retired person, USA) for improving English of our manuscript. We thank Dr. Vera Voznessenskaya for her comments and assistance in the preparation of this contribution.

Funding

This research was supported by grant from the Russian Scientific Fund [project no 16–14-10269]: design of the study, collection, analysis and interpretation of data. Budget project [0324–2016-0002] and implemented using the equipment of the Center for Genetic Resources of Laboratory Animals at ICG SB RAS, supported by the Ministry of Education and Science of Russia (Unique identifier of the project RFMEFI62117X0015): repair and amortization of equipment, the purchase of certain reagents. Publication cost are funded by grant from the Russian Scientific Fund [project no 16–14-10269].

Availability of data and materials

The datasets supporting the conclusions of this article are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

About this supplement

This article has been published as part of BMC Evolutionary Biology Volume 19 Supplement 1, 2019: Selected articles from BGRS\SB-2018: evolutionary biology. The full contents of the supplement are available online at https://bmcevolbiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/supplements/volume-19-supplement-1.

Authors’ contributions

EK and AR designed the study. AR and AA performed statistical analysis. EK, AR and AA wrote the manuscript. AM and AA performed behavioral studies. AR and AM performed MRI studies and image analysis. All authors reviewed and approved the final version of the manuscript.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

All experiments with mice were performed in accordance with the rules adopted by the European Convention for the Protection of Vertebrate Animals used for Experimental and other Scientific Purposes. The experimental protocol was approved by the Bioethical Committee of the Institute of Cytology and Genetics of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences (protocol №14, 2017-07-18) and Severtsov Institute of Ecology and Evolution Russian Academy of Sciences (protocol №3, 2017-06-19).

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Severtsov Institute of Ecology and Evolution RAS, Leninsky Prospect, 33, 119071 Moscow, Russia
(2)
Institute of Cytology and Genetics SB RAS, Prospekt Lavrentyeva 10, 630090 Novosibirsk, Russia

References

  1. Verzijden MN, ten Cate C, Servedio MR, Kozak GM, Boughman JW, Svensson EI. The impact of learning on sexual selection and speciation. Trends Ecol Evol. 2012;27(9):511–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Witte K, Kniel N, Kureck IM. Mate-choice copying: status quo and where to go. Curr Zool. 2015;61(6):1073–81.Google Scholar
  3. Marler P, Tamura M. Culturally transmitted patterns of vocal behavior in sparrows. Science. 1964;146(3650):1483–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Immelman K. Ecological significance of imprinting and early learning. Annu Rev Ecol Syst. 1975;6:15–37.Google Scholar
  5. Ten Cate C, Vos DR. Sexual imprinting and evolutionary processes in birds: a reassessment. In: Slater P, Rosenblatt J, Roper T, Snowdon C, editors. Advances in the study of behavior. San Diego: Academic Press; 1999. p. 1–31.Google Scholar
  6. Irwin DE, Price T. Sexual imprinting, learning and speciation. Heredity. 1999;82:347–54.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Verzijden MN, ten Cate C. Early learning influences species assortative mating preferences in Lake Victoria cichlid fish. Biol Lett. 2007;3(2):134–6.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  8. Tramm NA, Servedio MR. Evolution of mate-choice imprinting: competing strategies. Evolution. 2008;62(8):1991–2003.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Lorenz K. The companion in the bird’s world. Auk. 1937;54:245–73.Google Scholar
  10. Owens IPF, Rowe C, Thomas ALR. Sexual selection, speciation and imprinting: separating the sheep from the goats. Trends Ecol Evol. 1999;14(4):131–2.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Verzijden MN, Korthof REM, ten Cate C. Females learn from mothers and males learn from others. The effect of mother and siblings on the development of female mate preferences and male aggression biases in Lake Victoria cichlids, genus Mbipia. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 2008;62(8):1359–68.Google Scholar
  12. Maras PM, Petrulis A. The role of early olfactory experience in the development of adult odor preferences in rodents. In: Hurst JL, Beynon RJ, Roberts SC, Wyatt T, editors. Chemical signals in vertebrates. New York: Springer; 2008. p. 251–60.Google Scholar
  13. Laland KN. On the evolutionary consequences of sexual imprinting. Evolution. 1994;48(2):477–89.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Aoki K, Feldman MW, Kerr B. Models of sexual selection on a quantitative genetic trait when preference is acquired by sexual imprinting. Evolution. 2001;55(1):25–32.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Svensson EI, Eroukhmanoff F, Karlsson K, Runemark A, Brodin A. A role for learning in population divergence of mate preferences. Evolution. 2010;64(11):3101–13.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Slagsvold T, Hansen BT, Johannessen LE, Lifjeld JT. Mate choice and imprinting in birds studied by cross-fostering in the wild. Proc Biol Sci. 2002;269(1499):1449–55.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  17. Quadagno DM, Banks EM. The effect of reciprocal cross-fostering on the behaviour of two species of rodents, Mus musculus and Baiomys taylori. Anim Behav. 1970;18(2):379–90.Google Scholar
  18. Wuensch KL. Fostering house mice onto rats and deer mice: effects on response to species odors. Anim Learn Behav. 1992;20(3):253–8.Google Scholar
  19. Kotenkova EV, Maltsev AN, Ambaryan AV. The influence of early olfactory experience on mate choice in mammals: evolutionary aspects. Biol Bulletin Rev. 2018;8(1):32–47.Google Scholar
  20. Knudsen EI. Sensitive periods in the development of brain and behavior. J Cogn Neurosci. 2004;16(8):1412–25.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Kolb B, Gibb R. Brain plasticity and behaviour in the developing brain. J Can Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2011;20(4):265–76.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  22. Brennan PA, Keverne EB. Neural mechanisms of mammalian olfactory learning. Prog Neurobiol. 1997;51(4:457–81.Google Scholar
  23. Sanchez-Andrade G, Kendrick KM. The main olfactory system and social learning in mammals. Behav Brain Res. 2009;200(2):323–35.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Kaba H. Neurobiology of mammalian olfactory learning that occurs during sensitive periods. Curr Zool. 2010;56(6):819–33.Google Scholar
  25. Kania BF, Wrońska D, Zięba D. Introduction to neural plasticity mechanism. J Behav Brain Sci. 2017;7(2):41–9.Google Scholar
  26. Luskin MB. Restricted proliferation and migration of postnatally generated neurons derived from the forebrain subventricular zone. Neuron. 1993;11(1):173–89.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Mackay-Sim A, Chuah MI. Neurotrophic factors in the primary olfactory pathway. Prog Neurobiol. 2000;62(5):527–59.Google Scholar
  28. Halpern M, Martinez-Marcos A. Structure and function of the vomeronasal system: an update. Prog Neurobiol. 2003;70(3):245–318.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Alleva E. D’ Udine B. Early learning capability in rodents: a review (Rattus norvegicus and Mus musculus). Int J Comp Psychol. 1987;1(2):107–25.Google Scholar
  30. Moore RE. Olfactory discrimination as an isolating mechanism between Peromyscus maniculatus and Peromyscus polionotus. Am Midl Nat. 1965;73(1):85–100.Google Scholar
  31. Murphy MR. Intraspecific sexual preferences of female hamsters. J Comp Physiol Psychol. 1977;91(6):1337–46.Google Scholar
  32. Huck UW, Banks EM. The effects of cross-fostering on the behavior of two species of north American lemmings, Dicrostonyx groenlandicus and Lemmus trimucronatus: I. Olfactory preferences. Anim Behav. 1980;28(4):1046–52.Google Scholar
  33. Surov AV, Solovieva AV, Minaev AN. The olfactory sexual preferences of golden hamster (Mesocricetus auratus): the effect of early social and sexual experience. In: Marchlewska-Koj A, Lepri J, Müller-Schwarze DNY, editors. Chemical signals in vertebrates 9. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers; 2001. p. 255–62.Google Scholar
  34. Maestripieri D, Mateo JM. Maternal effects in mammals. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 2009.Google Scholar
  35. Hager R, Cheverud JM, Wolf JB. Change in maternal environment induced by cross-fostering alters genetic and epigenetic effects on complex traits in mice. Proc Biol Sci. 2009;276(1669):2949–54.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  36. D'Udine B, Alleva E. Early experience and sexual preferences in rodents. In: Bateson PPG, editor. Mate choice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1983. p. 311–26.Google Scholar
  37. Kotenkova EV, Ambaryan AV, Maltsev AN. The effect of reciprocal cross-fostering of pups in two species of mice Mus musculus and Mus spicilegus: an altered response to con- and heterospecific odors. Biol Bull. 2018;45(2):196–202.Google Scholar
  38. Denenberg VH, Hudgens GA, Zarrow MX. Mice reared with rats: modification of behavior by early experience with another species. Science. 1964;143(3604):380–1.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Lagerspetz K, Heino T. Changes in social reactions resulting from early experience with another species. Psychol Rep. 1970;27(2):255–62.Google Scholar
  40. McCarty R, Southwick CH. Cross-species fostering: effects on the olfactory preference of Onychomys torridus and Peromyscus leucopus. Behav Biol. 1977;19(2):255–60.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. McDonald DL, Forslund LG. The development of social preferences in the voles Microtus montanus and Microtus canicaudus: effects of cross-fostering. Behav Biol. 1978;22(4):497–508.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Sokolov VE, Kotenkova EV. Comparative study of the responses to olfactory signals of house and mound-building mice (Rodentia, Muridae). Izv Akad Nauk SSSR. 1987;2:165–71 (In Russian, English summary).Google Scholar
  43. Kirchhof-Glazier DA. Absence of sexual imprinting in house mice cross-fostered to deer mice. Physiol Behav. 1979;23(6):1073–80.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Kotenkova EV, Osadchuck AV, Lyalyukhina SI. Precopulatory isolating mechanisms between the house and mound-building mouse. Acta Theriol. 1989;34(22):315–24.Google Scholar
  45. Kotenkova EV, Romashchenko AV, Maltsev AN. Behavioral and neuronal responses of two mouse species, Mus musculus and Mus spicilegus, to con- and heterospecific olfactory signals. Vavilov J Genet Breed. 2017;21(7):788–94 (In Russian, English summary).Google Scholar
  46. Christophe N, Baudoin C. Olfactory preferences in two subspecies of mice Mus musculus musculus and Mus musculus domesticus and their hybrids. Anim Behav. 1998;56(2):365–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Kotenkova EV, Naidenko SV. Discrimination of con- and heterospecific odors in different taxa of the Mus musculus species group: olfactory cues as precopulatory isolating mechanism. In: Johnston RE, Muller-Schwarze D, Sorensen P, editors. Advances in chemical communication in vertebrates. New York: Plenum Press; 1999. p. 299–308.Google Scholar
  48. Smadja C, Catalan J, Ganem G. Strong premating divergence in a unimodal hybrid zone between two subspecies of the house mouse. J Evol Biol. 2004;17(1):165–76.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Linnaeus C. Systema naturae per regna tria naturae, secundum classes, ordines, genera, species, cum chracteribus, differentii, synonymis, locies. 10th ed. Laurentius Salvius: Stockholm; 1758.Google Scholar
  50. Schwarz E, Schwartz H. The wild and commensal stocks of the house mouse, Mus musculus Linnaeus. J Mammol. 1943;24(1):59–72.Google Scholar
  51. Corbet GB. Mus musculus domesticus Schwarz & Schwarz, 1943 (Mammalia, Rodentia): proposed conservation. Bull Zool Nomencl. 1988;45(3):214–5.Google Scholar
  52. Sage RD, Atchley WR, Capanna E. House mice as a model in systematic biology. Syst Biol. 1993;42(4):523–61.Google Scholar
  53. Sokolov VE, Kotenkova EV, Mikhailenko AG. Mus spicilegus. Mammal Spec. 1998;592:1–6.Google Scholar
  54. Yakimenko LV, Korobitsina KV, Frisman LV, Moriwaki K, Yonekava H. Cytogenetics and taxonomy of house mice in Russia and the neighboring countries. In: Kryukov AP, Yakimenko LV, editors. Problemy Evolyutsii (Problems of Evolution), vol. 5. Vladivostok: Dal’nauka; 2003. p. 62–89.Google Scholar
  55. Sokolov VE, Lyalyukhina SI, Kotenkova EV. A comparative-study of the reaction to olfactory stimuli in house and mound-building mice (Rodentia, Muridae). Zool. Zhurn. 1983;62(9):1394–7 (In Russian, English summary).Google Scholar
  56. Voznesenskaya AE, Ambaryan AV, Klyuchnikova MA, Kotenkova EV, Voznesenskaya VV. Mechanisms of reproductive isolation in house mouse superspecies complex Mus musculus s. lato: from behaviour to receptors. Dokl Biol Sci. 2010;435(1):418–20 (In Russian, English summary).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Rodriguez I, Feinstein P, Mombaerts P. Variable patterns of axonal projections of sensory neurons in the mouse vomeronasal system. Cell. 1999;97(2):199–208.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. Tirindelli R, Dibattista M, Pifferi S, Menini A. From pheromones to behavior. Physiol Rev. 2009;89(3):921–56.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Soini HA, Wiesler D, Koyama S, Féron C, Baudoin C, Novotny MV. Comparison of urinary scents of two related mouse species, Mus spicilegus and Mus domesticus. J Chem Ecol. 2009;35(5):580–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. Ambaryan AV, Kotenkova EV. А comparative analysis of sexual behavior of Mus musculus and Mus spicilegus. Biol Bull Rev. 2008;128(2):192–207.Google Scholar
  61. Ambaryan AV, Voznesenskaya VV, Kotenkova EV. Reproductive isolation in house mice: physiological and ethological mechanisms of precopulatory isolation in house mice of the supraspecies complex Mus musculus s. l. Saarbrucken: LAP LAMBERT Academic Publishing GmbH & Co. KG; 2010. (In Russian)Google Scholar
  62. Koretsky AP, Silva AC. Manganese-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MEMRI). NMR Biomed. 2004;17(8):527–31.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. Inoue T, Majid T, Pautler R. Manganese-enhanced MRI (MEMRI): neurophysiological applications. Rev Neurosci. 2011;22(6):675–94.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  64. Drapeau P, Nachshen DA. Manganese fluxes and manganese-dependent neurotransmitter release in presynaptic nerve endings isolated from rat brain. J Physiol. 1984;348:493–510.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  65. Narita K, Kawasaki F, Kita H. Mn and mg influxes through ca channels of motor nerve terminals are prevented by verapamil in frogs. Brain Res. 1990;510(2):289–95.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. Pautler RG, Mongeau R, Jacobs RE. In vivo trans-synaptic tract tracing from the murine striatum and amygdala utilizing manganese enhanced MRI (MEMRI). Magn Reson Med. 2003;50(1):33–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. Pautler RG, Silva AC, Koretsky AP. In vivo neuronal tract tracing using manganese-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. Magn Reson Med. 1998;40(5):740–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. Sloot WN, Gramsbergen JB. Axonal transport of manganese and its relevance to selective neurotoxicity in the rat basal ganglia. Brain Res. 1994;657(1–2):124–32.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. Tjalve H, Mejare C, Borg-Neczak K. Uptake and transport of manganese in primary and secondary olfactory neurons in pike. Pharmacol Toxicol. 1995;77(1):23–31.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. Van der Linden A, Van Meir V, Tindemans I, Verhoye M, Balthazart J. Applications of manganese enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MEMRI) to image brain plasticity in song birds. NMR Biomed. 2004;17(8):602–12.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. Van der Zijden JP, Wu O, van der Toorn A, Roeling TP, Bleys RL, Dijkhuizen RM. Changes in neuronal connectivity after stroke in rats as studied by serial manganese-enhanced MRI. NeuroImage. 2007;34(4):1650–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. Pautler RG, Koretsky AP. Tracing odor-induced activation in the olfactory bulbs of mice using manganese-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. NeuroImage. 2002;16(2):441–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. Chuang KH, Lee JH, Silva AC, Belluscio L, Alan P, Koretsky AP. Manganese enhanced MRI reveals functional circuitry in response to odorant stimuli. NeuroImage. 2009;44(2):363–72.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. Mendonça-Dias MH, Gaggelli E, Lauterbur PC. Paramagnetic contrast agents in nuclear magnetic resonance medical imaging. Semin Nucl Med. 1983;13(4):364–76.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. Burnett KR, Goldstein EJ, Wolf GL, Sen S, Mamourian AC. The oral administration of MnCl2: a potential alternative to IV injection for tissue contrast enhancement in magnetic resonance imaging. Magn Reson Imaging. 1984;2(4):307–14.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. Geraldes CF, Sherry AD, Brown RD, Koenig SH. Magnetic field dependence of solvent proton relaxation rates induced by Gd3+ and Mn2+ complexes of various polyaza macrocyclic ligands: implications for NMR imaging. Magn Reson Med. 1986;3(2):242–50.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  77. Cory DA, Schwartzentruber DJ, Mock BH. Ingested manganese chloride as a contrast agent for magnetic resonance imaging. Magn Reson Imaging. 1987;5(1):65–70.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  78. Fornasiero D, Bellen JC, Baker RJ, Chatterton BE. Paramagnetic complexes of manganese (II), iron (III), and gadolinium (III) as contrast agents for magnetic resonance imaging. The influence of stability constants on the biodistribution of radioactive aminopolycarboxylate complexes. Investig Radiol. 1987;22(4):322–7.Google Scholar
  79. Nelson JF, Felicio LS, Randall PK, Sims C, Finch CE. A longitudinal study of estrous cyclicity in aging C57BL/6J mice: I. Cycle frequency, length and vaginal cytology. Biol Reprod. 1982;27(2):327–39.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  80. Ogg MC, Bendahamane M, Fletcher ML. Habituation of glomerular responses in the olfactory bulb following prolonged odor stimulation reflects reduced peripheral input. Front Mol Neurosci. 2015;8:53.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  81. Myers L, Sirois MJ. Spearman correlation coefficients, differences between. Wiley StatsRef: Statistics Reference Online. 2006; https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118445112.stat02802.
  82. Guo J, Zhou A, Moss RL. Urine and urine-derived compounds induce c-fos mRNA expression in accessory olfactory bulb. Neuroreport. 1997;8(7):1679–83.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  83. Leinders-Zufall T, Lane AP, Puche AC, Ma W, Novotny MV, Shipley MT, et al. Ultrasensitive pheromone detection by mammalian vomeronasal neurons. Nature. 2000;405:792–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  84. Thompson RN, Robertson BK, Napier A, Wekesa KS. Sex specific responses to urinary chemicals by the mouse vomeronasal organ. Chem Senses. 2004;29(9):749–54.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  85. Kotenkova EV. A comparative analysis of ethological and physiological mechanisms of precopulatory isolation. Biol Bulletin Rev. 2014;134(5):488–518.Google Scholar
  86. Ben-Shaul Y, Katz LC, Mooney R, Dulac C. In vivo vomeronasal stimulation reveals sensory encoding of conspecific and allospecific cues by the mouse accessory olfactory bulb. PNAS. 2010;107(11):5172–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  87. Brennan PA, Keverne EB. Something in the air? New insights into mammalian pheromones. Curr Biol. 2004;14(2):81–9.Google Scholar
  88. Keller M, Baum MJ, Brock O, Brennan PA, Bakker J. The main and the accessory olfactory systems interact in the control of mate recognition and sexual behavior. Behav Brain Res. 2009;200(2):268–76.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  89. Kelliher KR. The combined role of the main olfactory and vomeronasal systems in social communication in mammals. Horm Behav. 2007;52(5):561–70.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  90. Swaney WT, Keverne EB. The evolution of pheromonal communication. Behav Brain Res. 2009;200(2):239–47.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  91. Baum MJ. Contribution of pheromones processed by the main olfactory system to mate recognition in female mammals. Front Neuroanat. 2012;6:20.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  92. Khokhlov AA, Romanov RA, Rogachevskaya OA, Sadovnikov VB, Kolesnikov SS. A possible role of gustducin-positive sensory cells operative in the main olfactory epithelium in the recognition of 2-heptanone. Sens Syst. 2009;23(2):164–71 (In Russian).Google Scholar
  93. Johnson B, Xu Z, Ali S, Leon M. Spatial representations of odorants in olfactory bulbs of rats and mice: similarities and differences in chemotopic organization. J Comp Neurol. 2009;514(6):658–73.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  94. Voznessenskaya VV, Parfyonova VM, Wysocki CJ. Induced olfactory sensitivity in rodents: a general phenomenon. Adv Biosci. 1995;93:399–406.Google Scholar
  95. Sokolov VE, Voznesenskaya VV, Parfenova VM, Wysocki CJ. Induced sensitivity to odorants: A new phenomenon. Doklady Akademii Nauk. 1996;347(6):843–6 (In Russian, English summary).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  96. Sokolov VE, Voznesenskaya VV. The role of early olfactory experience in the rat individual recognition (Rattus norvegicus). Doklady Akademii Nauk. 1997;355(1):140–2 (In Russian, English summary).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  97. Wang HW, Wysocki CJ, Gold GH. Induction of olfactory receptor sensitivity in mice. Science. 1993;260(5110):998–1000.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  98. Yee K, Wysocki CJ. Odorant exposure increases olfactory sensitivity: olfactory epithelium is implicated. Physiol Behav. 2001;72(5):705–11.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  99. Sullivan RM, Wilson DA. Molecular biology of early olfactory memory. Learn Mem. 2003;10(1):1–4.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  100. Voznessenskaya VV, Klyuchnikova MA, Wysocki CJ. Roles of the main olfactory and vomeronasal systems in the detection of androstenone in inbred strains of mice. Curr Zool. 2010;56(6):813–8.Google Scholar
  101. Bl R, Panhuber H, Laing DG, Breipohl W. Spine density on olfactory granule cell dendrites is reduced in rats reared in a restricted olfactory environment. Brain Res. 1988;468(1):143–7.Google Scholar
  102. Hinds JW, Hinds PL. Synapse formation in the mouse olfactory bulb. I. Quantitative studies. J Comp Neurol. 1976;169(1):15–40.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  103. Rehn B, Breipohl W, Mendoza AS, Apfelbach R. Changes in granule cells of the ferret olfactory bulb associated with imprinting on prey odours. Brain Res. 1986;373(1–2):114–25.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  104. Apfelbach R. Imprinting on prey odours in ferrets (Mustela putorius F. Furo L.) and its neural correlates. Behav Process. 1986;12(4):363–81.Google Scholar
  105. Voznessenskaya VV, Wysocki CJ, Chukhrai ES, Poltorack OМ, Atyaksheva LF. Long-lasting effects of chemical exposures in mice. In: Johnston RE, Müller-Schwarze D, Sorensen PW, editors. Advances in chemical signals in vertebrates 8. New York: Kluwer; 1999. p. 563–71.Google Scholar
  106. Voznessenskaya VV, Wysocki CJ. Specific anosmia to androstenone and aggressive behavior in inbred mice. Chem Senses. 2001;26(6):811.Google Scholar
  107. Cummings DM, Belluscio L. Continuous neural plasticity in the olfactory intrabulbar circuitry. J Neurosci. 2010;30(27):9172–80.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  108. Shykind BM, Rohani SC, O’Donnell S, Nemes A, Mendelsohn M, Sun Y, et al. Gene switching and the stability of odorant receptor gene choice. Cell. 2004;117(6):801–15.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  109. Gottfried JA. Function follows form: ecological constraints on odor codes and olfactory percepts. Curr Opin Neurobiol. 2009;19(4):422–9.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  110. Luo M, Fee MS, Ratz LC. Encoding pheromonal signals in the accessory olfactory bulb of behaving mice. Science. 2003;299(5610):1196–201.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  111. Woo CC, Hingco EE, Brett A, Johnson BA, Leon M. Broad activation of the glomerular layer enhances subsequent olfactory responses. Chem Senses. 2007;32(1):51–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  112. Magurran AE, Ramnarine IW. Evolution of mate discrimination in a fish. Curr Biol. 2005;15(21):867–8.Google Scholar
  113. Dobzhansky TG. Genetics and the origin of species. New York: Columbia University Press; 1937.Google Scholar
  114. Butlin RK. Speciation by reinforcement. Trends Ecol Evol. 1987;2:8–13.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  115. Howard DJ. Reinforcement: origin, dynamics, and fate of an evolutionary hypothesis. In: Harrison RG, editor. Hybrid zones and the evolutionary process, vol. 1993. New York: Oxford University Press; 1993. p. 46–69.Google Scholar
  116. Servedio MR, Noor MAF. The role of reinforcement in speciation: theory and data. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst. 2003;34:339–64.Google Scholar
  117. Servedio MR, Saether SA, Saetre G. 2009. Reinforcement and learning. Evol Ecol. 2009;23(1):109–23.Google Scholar
  118. Verzijden MN, Lachlan RF, Servedio MR. Female mate-choice behavior and sympatric speciation. Evolution. 2005;59(10):2097–108.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  119. Duvaux L, Belkhir K, Boulesteix M, Boursot P. Isolation and gene flow: inferring the speciation history of European house mice. Mol Ecol. 2011;20(24):5248–64.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  120. Bímová B, Macholán M, Baird SJ, Munclinger P, Dufková P, Laukaitis CM, et al. Reinforcement selection acting on the European house mouse hybrid zone. Mol Ecol. 2011;20(11):2403–24.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  121. Ganem G, Litel C, Lenormand T. Variation in mate preference across a house mouse hybrid zone. Heredity. 2008;100(6):594–601.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  122. Bímová B, Albrecht T, Macholán M, Piálek J. Signalling components of the house mouse mate recognition system. Behav Process. 2009;80:20–7.Google Scholar
  123. Piálek J, Vyskočilová M, Bímová B, Havelková D, Piálková J, Dufková P, et al. Development of unique house mouse resources suitable for evolutionary studies of speciation. J Hered. 2008;99(1):34–44.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  124. Ganem G. Behaviour, ecology, and speciation in the house mouse. In: Macholán M, Baird SJE, Munclinger P, Piálek J, editors. Evolution of the house mouse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2012. p. 373–406.Google Scholar
  125. Thaler L, Bonhomme F, Britton-Davidian J. Processes of speciation and semi-speciation in the house mouse. In: Berry RJ, editor. Biology of the house mouse. London: Academic Press; 1981. p. 27–41.Google Scholar
  126. Kryštufek B, Macholán M. Morphological differentiation in Mus spicilegus and the taxonomic status of mound-building mice from the Adriatic coast of Yugoslavia. J Zool Lond. 1998;245(2):185–96.Google Scholar
  127. Macholán M, Vyskocilová M, Bonhomme F, Kryštufek B, Orth A, Vohralík V. Genetic variation and phylogeography of free-living mouse species (genus Mus) in the Balkans and the Middle East. Mol Ecol. 2007;16(22):4774–88.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  128. Mitsainas GP, Tryfonopoulos GA, Thanoub EG, Bisa R, Fraguedakis-Tsolis SE, Chondropoulos BP. New data on the distribution of Mus spicilegus Petenyi, 1882 (Rodentia, Muridae) and a distinct mtDNA lineage in the southern Balkans. Mamm Biol. 2009;74(5):351–60.Google Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s). 2019

Advertisement